Sharpness comparison of A-mount fast, wide angle primes

[jfirneno]

So there are four A-mount lenses that I am highly interested in. Sony/Zeiss 24 F2, Minolta 28 F2, Minolta (or Sony) 35 F1.4, Minolta 35 F2. Obviously this list encompasses lenses that differ greatly in age, cost, focal length, manufacturer and reputation. For this discussion I am interested in one aspect of the lenses, sharpness at f2. The one exception would be the sharpness at f1.4 and f1.8 of the 35mm f1.4 lens. For example, if the f1.8 (or even better, f1.4) image is sharper than the F2 image of the other 35mm lens that would represent an advantage. My use of these lenses would include both landscape applications (where wide open apertures would obviously not be a big advantage) and low light applications (where it would). Anyone who has experience directly comparing the qualities of these lenses would be greatly sought for this kind of info.

Thanks in advance
John

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

From what I have seen the 35/1.4 is a bad lens. I'm also not so impressed by the 24/2 from the samples I have seen.

Kurt Munger has tested a lot of lenses, his site has probably the best information: http://kurtmunger.com/

Photozone measures MTF using Imatest: http://www.photozone.de/

Best regards
Erik

So there are four A-mount lenses that I am highly interested in. Sony/Zeiss 24 F2, Minolta 28 F2, Minolta (or Sony) 35 F1.4, Minolta 35 F2. Obviously this list encompasses lenses that differ greatly in age, cost, focal length, manufacturer and reputation. For this discussion I am interested in one aspect of the lenses, sharpness at f2. The one exception would be the sharpness at f1.4 and f1.8 of the 35mm f1.4 lens. For example, if the f1.8 (or even better, f1.4) image is sharper than the F2 image of the other 35mm lens that would represent an advantage. My use of these lenses would include both landscape applications (where wide open apertures would obviously not be a big advantage) and low light applications (where it would). Anyone who has experience directly comparing the qualities of these lenses would be greatly sought for this kind of info.

Thanks in advance
John

[qwz]

35mm f/1.4 G Sony/Minolta is a strange beast, good for low-lite bokeh images but really soft wide-open.

Personally i refer much 35mm f/2 minolta (and use it much, now on a900).

I have old version (newer so called RS has silmilar performance except rounded iris blades and a litttle better flare control due newer coating) and it is very good wide open and excellent stopped down.
Only flaws i know it  is relatively poor (for 2010s) flare control and sometimes missing autofocus (but i think it is much more depends on af-sensor in camera which is not good on a900, except center one).

New 24mm f/2 is really great but some people complaints about poor quality control over first production samples.
I just tryed it a little with good old 28mm f/2 too but i have 20 and 35, and doте wat anything between.

I think choice of these three primes is matter of taste and angle of view, may be Zeiss has a little better look, like a Zeiss and modern lens but old ones is one of the best Minolta primes (like a 100/2 and 85 1.4, 200 2.8 etc).

[Rand47]

I own the CZ 24 f/2, used on an a900.

Very sharp indeed.  Excellent contrast. Worth the cost IMO.


For what it is worth, Munger's reviews are interesting but I often find his conclusions & recommendations "too driven" by relative cost.  If cost is "the" primary factor in one's considerations I guess that would make sense, but if IQ is primary, his opinions could be less than optimal.  I also find his test images not particularly useful.  E.G., I own both the venerable Minolta 70-210 f/4 & the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM.  The f/4 is an amazingly good lens for the price of a nice clean copy, but it is very far from the f/2.8 in more than just speed.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I find Kurt's test images quite excellent for the purpose of illustrating differences in image quality. I have several of the lenses he tested like both the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the SAL 24-70/2.8 ZF, Minolta 20/2.8 AF, 70-300/4.5-5.6G and I say is findings are pretty similar to mine.

Keep in mind that the quality of the lens is just one factor. It takes excellent technique to get full sharpness from the lens.

- Tripod
- Mirror lockup
- Exact focus
- Cable release or self timer

Really short shutter times can also yield full sharpness.

Best regards
Erik

I own the CZ 24 f/2, used on an a900.

Very sharp indeed.  Excellent contrast. Worth the cost IMO.


For what it is worth, Munger's reviews are interesting but I often find his conclusions & recommendations "too driven" by relative cost.  If cost is "the" primary factor in one's considerations I guess that would make sense, but if IQ is primary, his opinions could be less than optimal.  I also find his test images not particularly useful.  E.G., I own both the venerable Minolta 70-210 f/4 & the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM.  The f/4 is an amazingly good lens for the price of a nice clean copy, but it is very far from the f/2.8 in more than just speed.

[aaykay]

I have the Sony 35/1.4 and the Minolta 35/2, and wide-open, the 35/2 is sharper than the 35/1.4 (stopped down to  f/2). By f/5.6, there is little to choose between them, purely from a sharpness perspective.   Having said that, the images from the 35/2 are a bit "clinical", while the 35/1.4G is more "organically pleasing".

I shoot the 35/1.4 quite a bit at f/1.4 (indoor people images) and find them more than acceptable and fully usable, even when printed large.   

PS:  All of the above are with the A900.  Having acquired the 35/1.4 around 2 months back, I am still debating about which of my 35mm primes to sell.   I am leaning towards selling off the 35/2.

[jfirneno]

Folks, thanks for the feedback.  I'd say that opinions differ but I'm still tempted to pick up either the 35 f1.4 or the 24 f2.  I really could use a wide aperture wide angle for indoor work and it looks like these are my two best choices.

Regards
John

[MBMPhotography]

I had only short experience with ZA24/2 and I am still not sure whether to buy it or not. For sure I will not be selling my old Minolta 35/2 that love for the 3D quality of image.